[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1712-1723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from December 18, 2008 to December 30, 2008. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79928).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings''
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60
days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief
[[Page 1713]]
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will
issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained
[[Page 1714]]
absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request
should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To
be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This is an administrative change
which would reflect the creation of new companies as approved by the
NRC Order dated July 28, 2008. The amendments would not be implemented
until the restructuring transactions have been completed. The
amendments would revise the names on the plant licenses to match the
names of the new companies. Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC would be
changed to Enexus Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC. Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc. would be changed to EquaGen Nuclear LLC.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
The proposed amendment would only change the names of the
licensees and reflect the referenced NRC Order requirements;
principal management and operational staffing for the restructured
organization remain largely unchanged. The proposed name changes do
not: (a) Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (b) create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated; or (c) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: November 25, 2008.
Description of amendment request: Amend Renewed Operating Licenses
DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Units 1 and 2 to
incorporate new Large-Break LOCA (LBLOCA) analyses using the realistic
LBLOCA methodology contained in NRC-approved WCAP-16009-P-A,
``Realistic Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using Automated
Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),'' and to revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.4.b to include reference to WCAP-
16009-P-A. This request also proposes to implement Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler-363A. TSTF-363A eliminates the
revision numbers and dates from the list of topical reports in TS
5.6.4.b. TS 5.6.4.b provides the analytical methods used to determine
the core operating limits. Relocation of the complete citations to the
core operating limits report (COLR) will enable the current revisions
of these topical reports to be used.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This application proposes to incorporate LBLOCA analyses using
the ASTRUM methodology, documented in WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic
Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated
Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM)'', in the PBNP
licensing basis, add reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in the Technical
Specification 5.6.4.b list of approved methodologies for
establishing core operating limits, and relocate topical report
detailed reference citations from TS 5.6.4.b to the COLR.
Accident analyses are not accident initiators, therefore, this
proposed licensing basis change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident. The analyses using
ASTRUM demonstrated that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46,
``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,'' were met. The NRC has approved WCAP-
16009-P-A for application to two-loop Westinghouse plants with upper
plenum injection (UPI). Since the PBNP Units 1 and 2 are two-loop
Westinghouse plants with UPI and the analysis results meet the 10
CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Addition of the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in TS 5.6.4.b and
relocation of topical report detailed citations to the COLR are
administrative changes that do not affect the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The changes proposed in this license amendment do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to incorporate LBLOCA
analyses using the ASTRUM methodology, documented in WCAP-16009-P-A,
``Realistic Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using the
Automated Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),'' in
the PBNP licensing basis, add a reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in the
Technical Specification list of approved methodologies for
establishing core operating limits, and relocate topical report
detailed reference citations from TS 5.6.4.b to the COLR in
accordance with approved TSTF-363A.
There are no physical changes being made to the plant as a
result of using the Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in
WCAP-16009-P-A for performance of the LBLOCA analyses. No
[[Page 1715]]
new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The
configuration, operation and accident response of the structures or
components are unchanged by utilization of the new analysis
methodology. Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no
transient event results in a new sequence of events that could lead
to a new accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analysis
are within the design limits of existing plant equipment.
In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM LBLOCA analysis
methodology does not create any new failure modes that could lead to
a different kind of accident. The design of all systems remains
unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been installed which
could potentially introduce new failure modes or accident sequences.
No changes have been made to any reactor protection system or
emergency safeguards features instrumentation actuation setpoints.
Based on this review, it is concluded that no new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed methodology changes.
Addition of the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in the Technical
Specifications is an administrative change that does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Relocation of
topical report detailed citations from the Technical Specifications
to the core operating limits report in accordance with approved
TSTF-363A is an administrative change that does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The licensing basis and Technical Specification changes proposed
in this license amendment do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This application proposes to incorporate LBLOCA analyses using
the ASTRUM methodology, documented in WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic
Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated
Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM)'', in the PBNP
licensing basis, add a reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in the Technical
Specifications list of approved methodologies for establishing core
operating limits, and relocate topical report detailed reference
citations from Technical Specification 5.6.4.b to the COLR.
The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for
emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors'' are met. Margins of safety for LBLOCAs include
quantitative limits for fuel performance established in 10 CFR
50.46. These acceptance criteria and the associated margins of
safety are not being changed by this proposed new methodology. The
NRC has approved WCAP-16009-P-A for application to two-loop
Westinghouse plants with UPI. Since the PBNP is a two-loop
Westinghouse plant with UPI and the analysis results meet the 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The analysis results
using this methodology improve the margin of safety of PBNP.
Addition of the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in the Technical
Specifications and implementation of TSTF-363A are administrative
changes that do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Antonio Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney,
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
to require an inspection of each ice condenser within 24 hours of
experiencing a seismic event greater than or equal to an operating
basis earthquake (i.e., \1/2\ of a safe shutdown earthquake) within the
5-week period after ice basket replenishment is completed. This will
confirm that ice condenser lower inlet doors have not been blocked by
ice fallout.
The proposed amendment provides a procedural requirement to confirm
the ice condenser maintains the ice condenser generic qualification as
set forth in the UFSAR. Justification for the use of the proposed
procedural requirement is based on reasonable assurance that the ice
condenser lower inlet doors will open following a seismic event during
the 5-week period and the low probability of a seismic event occurring
coincident with or subsequently followed by a design basis accident.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The analyzed accidents of consideration in regard to changes
potentially affecting the ice condenser are a loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) and a steam or feedwater line break inside
containment. The ice condenser is an accident mitigator and is not
postulated as being the initiator of a LOCA or high energy line
break (HELB). The ice condenser is structurally designed to
withstand a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) plus a Design Basis
Accident (DBA) and does not interconnect or interact with any
systems that interconnect or interact with the reactor coolant, main
steam or feedwater systems. Because the proposed changes do not
result in, or require any physical change to the ice condenser that
could introduce an interaction with the reactor coolant, main steam
or feedwater systems, there can be no change in the probability of
an accident previously evaluated.
Under the current licensing basis, the ice condenser ice baskets
would be considered fully fused prior to power ascension and the ice
condenser would perform its accident mitigation function even if a
safe shutdown seismic event occurred coincident with or just
preceding the accident. Under the proposed change, there is some
finite probability that, within 24 hours following a seismic
disturbance, a LOCA or HELB in containment could occur within 5
weeks of the completion of ice basket replenishment. However,
several factors provide defense-in-depth and tend to mitigate the
potential consequences of the proposed change.
DBAs are not assumed to occur simultaneously with a seismic
event. Therefore, the coincident occurrence of a LOCA or HELB with a
seismic event is strictly a function of the combined probability of
the occurrence of independent events, which in this case is very
low. Based on the Probabilistic Risk Assessment model and seismic
hazard analysis, the combined probability of occurrence of a seismic
disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE [operating basis
earthquake] during the 5-week period following ice replenishment
coincident with or subsequently followed by a LOCA or HELB during
the time required to perform the proposed inspection (24 hours) and
if required by technical specifications, complete unit shutdown (37
hours), is less than 3.89E-09 for Sequoyah [Nuclear Plant]. This
probability is well below the threshold that is typically considered
credible.
Even if ice were to fall from ice baskets during a seismic event
occurring coincident with or subsequently followed by an accident,
the ice condenser would be expected to perform its intended safety
function. There is reasonable assurance that the ice condenser would
function properly following a seismic event within the 5-week period
due to inherent conservatisms in the 1974 test data, the low
likelihood of flow channel and floor drain blockage, and improbable
blocking of the lower inlet doors by any potential fallout.
Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The ice condenser is expected to
perform its intended safety function under all circumstances
following a LOCA or HELB in containment.
[[Page 1716]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects the assumed timing of a postulated
seismic and DBA applied to the ice condenser and provides an
alternate methodology to confirm the ice condenser lower inlet doors
are capable of opening. As previously discussed, the ice condenser
is not postulated as an initiator of any DBA. The proposed change
does not impact any plant system, structure or component that is an
accident initiator. The proposed change does not involve any
hardware changes to the ice condenser or other changes that could
create new accident mechanisms. Therefore, there can be no new or
different accidents created from those previously identified and
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The performance of the fuel cladding and the reactor coolant
system will not be impacted by the proposed change.
The requirement to inspect the ice condensers within 24 hours of
experiencing seismic activity greater than or equal to an OBE during
the 5-week period following the completion of ice basket
replenishment will confirm that the ice condenser lower inlet doors
are capable of opening. This inspection will confirm that the ice
condenser doors remain fully capable of performing their intended
safety function under credible circumstances.
The proposed change affects the assumed timing of a postulated
seismic and DBA applied to the ice condenser and provides an
alternate methodology in confirming the ice condenser lower inlet
doors are capable of opening. As previously discussed, the combined
probability of occurrence of a LOCA or HELB and a seismic
disturbance greater than or equal to an OBE during the ``period of
potential exposure'' is less than 3.89E-09 for Sequoyah. This
probability is well below the threshold that is typically considered
credible.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. The SQN [Sequoyah Nuclear Plant]
ice condenser will perform its intended safety function under
credible circumstances.
The changes proposed in this license amendment request (LAR) do
not make any physical alteration to the ice condensers, nor does it
affect the required functional capability of the ice condenser in
any way. The intent of the proposed change to the UFSAR is to
eliminate an overly restrictive waiting period prior to unit ascent
to power operations following the completion of ice basket
replenishment. The required inspection of the ice condenser
following a seismic event greater than or equal to an OBE will
confirm that the ice condenser lower inlet doors will continue to
fully perform their safety function as assumed in the SQN safety
analyses.
Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 23, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The requested change is a partial
adoption of Technical Specification Task Force Change Traveler No. 491
(TSTF-491), Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam and Feedwater Valve
Isolation Times.'' The proposed change only revises TS 3.7.1.5, ``Main
Steam Line Isolation Valves,'' by relocating the main steam isolation
valve closure time from Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.7.1.5.1 to the
Bases. The proposed amendment deviates from TSTF-491 in that the
current Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) TS 3.7.1.6, ``Main Feedwater
Isolation, Regulating, and Bypass Valves,'' and associated surveillance
requirements do not include the main feedwater valve closure times, and
thus, TSTF-491 changes to TS 3.7.1.6 would not apply to the SQN TSs
without modification. Because of this deviation from TSTF-491, the
proposed amendment will be processed as a typical amendment.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: To satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee's amendment request incorporates by reference the proposed no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) published in the Federal
Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58884), as part of the Consolidated
Line Item Improvement Process associated with TSTF-491. That NSHC is
reproduced below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows relocating main steam and main
feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main
feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time
with the phrase, ``within limits.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of
these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, `` Changes, test and
experiments,'' to ensure that such changes do not result in more
than minimal increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phrase, ``within limits.'' The changes
do not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation
valves.
[[Page 1717]]
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phrase, ``within limits.'' Instituting
the proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main
steam and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or
License Controlled Document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR
50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory
control and ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve
testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is
unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls
to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed this analysis. Based on this review, it
appears the licensee's proposed amendment is bounded by the original
NSHC and that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: June 19, 2008, as supplemented
by letter dated October 1, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments (1) revise the
technical specifications (TS) control rod notch surveillance
requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod Operability,''
and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify
the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test extension. The licensee
is proposing to adopt the approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, ``Control Rod Notch
Testing Frequency.'' A notice of availability of TSTF-475, Revision 1,
was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 (72 FR
63935).
In addition, the proposed amendment would remove Note 2 associated
with SR 3.1.3.3 for Unit 1, which is a cycle-specific note and has
expired. This change is administrative in nature and does not affect
the no significant hazards consideration determination.
Date of issuance: December 15, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 250 and 278.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58671). The supplemental letter dated October 1, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments are contained
in a safety evaluation dated December 15, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336,
and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, New London
County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: August 21, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments remove references to
and limits imposed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Letter (GL)
82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours,'' from the subject
plants' technical specifications. The guidelines have been superseded
by the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 26 (10 CFR 26), Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue.''
Date of issuance: December 17, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later thanOctober 1, 2009.
Amendment Nos.: 116; 308; and 247.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-21, Renewed Facility Operating
License No. DPR-65, and Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (73
FR 54864).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New
York
Date of application for amendment: December 18, 2007, as
supplemented by
[[Page 1718]]
letters dated September 18 and October 28, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by adding a Control Room Habitability Program and
revising the TS on the Control Room Ventilation System in accordance
with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-
448, ``Control Room Habitability.'' License conditions are added
regarding the initial performance of the new surveillance.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 258 and 239.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15785). The September 18 and October 28, 2008, supplements provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), Westchester
County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the licensing
basis for passive failures in fluid systems for IP2 and IP3 such that
the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) recirculation phase single passive
failure is assumed to occur 24 hours or greater following initiation of
a LOCA. Also, the IP2 single passive failure licensing basis for the
component cooling water system is revised such that a passive failure
is assumed to occur 24 hours or greater following initiation of a LOCA.
Date of issuance: December 4, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 257 and 238.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendment
revised the License and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (73 FR
37503).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: January 31, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated July 30, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
description of fuel assemblies specified in Technical Specification
(TS) 4.2.1 and adds the approved AREVA licensed topical report BAW-
10240(P)-A, ``Incorporation of M5 Properties in Framatome ANP Approved
Methods,'' to the analytical methods referenced in TS 5.6.5.b to permit
the use of M5 alloy and supporting analytical methods in future reload
designs.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 234.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15786). The supplement dated July 30, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the initial Federal Register notice. The Commission's
related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated December 12, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: May 5, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise renewed
facility operating license DPR-20 to correct an error, generated during
Palisades license transfer approval on April 11, 2007, and also remove
several outdated license conditions pertaining to surveillance
requirements.
Date of issuance: December 15, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 235.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52416).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2),
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2007, as
supplemented on August 1, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises several
Technical Specification (TS) sections to allow relaxations of various
Reactor Trip System/Engineered Safety Feature (RTS/ESF) logic
completion times, bypass test times, allowable outage times, and
surveillance testing intervals that were previously reviewed and
approved by NRC under Westinghouse Reports WCAP-14333-P-A,
``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of RPS [reactor protection system] and
ESFAS [ESF Actuation System] Test Times and Completion Times,'' and
WCAP-15376-P-A, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS
Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and
Completion Times.''
Date of issuance: December 29, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 282 and 166.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments
revises the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 10, 2008 (73 FR
32745). The August 1, 2008, supplemental letter provided clarifying
information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 1719]]
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CNP-1 and CNP-2), Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: December 27, 2007, as
supplemented on July 28, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring habitability within the control room
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the technical
specifications (TS) related to the control room emergency ventilation
system in TS Section 3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation
(CREV) System,'' and TS Section 5.5.16, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program.'' The amendment also adds a license condition to
support implementation of the TS change.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 307 (CNP-1), 289 (CNP-2).
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revised the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5224). The supplemental letter dated July 28, 2008, provided
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff's initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410,
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NMP 1 and 2),
Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: June 24, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by (1) replacing the references to
Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) with references to the ASME Code
for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) in the
applicable TS section for the Inservice Testing (IST) Program for NMP 1
TS 6.5.4 and NMP 2 TS 5.5.6; and (2) revising the allowance to extend
IST frequencies by 25 percent to clearly state that the allowance is
applicable to IST frequencies of 2 years or less. The proposed changes
are based on TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
Change Traveler 479-A, Revision 0, ``Changes to Reflect Revision of 10
CFR 50.55a,'' as modified by TSTF-497-A, Revision 0, ``Limit Inservice
Testing Program SR 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or
Less.''
Date of issuance: December 22, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 199 and 129.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-063 and NPF-069: The
amendments revise the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58674).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: December 26, 2007, as
supplemented onNovember 25, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the action
and surveillance requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.10,
``Control Room Ventilation System (CRVS),'' and add a new
administrative controls program, TS 5.5.18, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program.'' The amendments are consistent with the TS
traveler TSTF-448, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 23, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-201; Unit 2-202.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5227). The supplement dated November 25, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2008, as supplemented
by letters dated September 29, and October 20, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Onsite Power Distribution Systems,'' to
establish a separate TS Action statement for inoperable inverters
associated with the 120 volt alternating current distribution panels.
The amendment extends the allowed outage time for inoperable inverters
from 8 hours to 24 hours.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 175.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52421). The letters dated September 29, and October 20, 2008,
provided clarifying information that did not change the initial
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand
the application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register
notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: September 4, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TS) to adopt TS Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-
447, Revision 1, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to
Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitors.''
Date of issuance: December 23, 2008.
[[Page 1720]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 72.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the TSs
and Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR
62569).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: December 28, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),'' and
TS Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: December 18, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 189.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register : March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15790).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-281, Surry
Power Station, Unit 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: December 17, 2007, as
supplemented on April 24, 2008, and June 27, 2008.
Brief Description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.4, pertaining to the containment leak rate testing
program. The TS change permitted a one-time 5-year extension to the
once per 10-year frequency of the performance-based leakage rate
testing program for Type A tests, which are done in accordance with
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
Program.'' This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement allows
the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 26, 2015.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 263.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-37: Amendment changed
the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (73 FR
2551).
The supplemental letters dated April 24, 2008, and June 27, 2008,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2008, as supplemented by
letter dated October 27, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
Technical Specification (TS) to establish more effective and
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE)
in accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler
TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Specifically, the
amendment modified TS 3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation
System (CREVS),'' and established a CRE habitability program in TS
Section 5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and Manuals.''
Date of issuance: December 24, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 179.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (73
FR 8072). The supplemental letter dated October 27, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 24, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the
[[Page 1721]]
Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In
such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity
for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less
than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public
comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either
event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in
the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission
through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave
to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the
[[Page 1722]]
sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the
authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that
contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 12, 2008.
Description of amendment request: These amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.3.1, ``Radiation Monitoring,'' and TS 3.4.6.1,
``Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems,'' at each unit to
remove the requirement for one containment atmosphere gaseous
radioactivity monitor to be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4. The
requirement for one containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity
monitor and one containment pocket sump level monitor to be operable in
Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4 will remain. Additionally, the amendments make
corresponding changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.3.3.1 and 4.4.6.1
and modifications to existing TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.4.6.1 action statements for each unit. Because the licensee was in a
30-day TS action statement completion time, these changes were
processed as an exigent change in order to prevent an unnecessary
shutdown and to allow the continued safe operation of the units.
Date of issuance: December 4, 2008.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance, to be implemented no later than 60 days after issuance.
[[Page 1723]]
Amendment Nos.: 322 and 314.
Facility Operating License Nos. (DPR-77 and DPR-79): Amendment
revises the technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendments was
published in the The Chattanooga Times Free Press newspaper, located in
Chattanooga, Tennessee on November 26, 2008. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated December 4, 2008.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of December 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-35 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P